4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Púchov.
5.  On 17 December 1996 the applicant filed an action against a periodical with the Považská Bystrica District Court (Okresný súd). He sought protection of his personal integrity under Articles 11 et seq. of the Civil Code and claimed damages. He later extended the action to include the editor of the periodical.
6.  The District Court held hearings on 24 March and 20 August 1997. They were both adjourned, the former with a view to obtaining evidence, the latter in order to decide on the applicant's requests for free legal aid and an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees.
7.  On 25 November 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for free legal aid and waiver of court fees. The applicant appealed and challenged the judge for bias.
8.  A hearing that was listed for 10 December 1997 had to be adjourned because the challenge to the judge had not yet been determined.
9.  On 9 April 1998 the Trenčín Regional Court (Krajský súd) dismissed the challenge of bias.
10.  On 26 October 1998 the District Court held another hearing which had to be adjourned because the applicant's appeal against the decision of 25 November 1997 concerning court fees and legal aid had still not been determined. The case file was subsequently transmitted to the Regional Court for a determination of the appeal.
11.  On 30 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 25 November 1997.
12.  On 6 October 1999 the District Court appointed an ex officio lawyer for the applicant. On 24 November 1999 the lawyer made written submissions in the applicant's name.
13.  On 12 June 2000 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.
14.  On 4 September 2000 the District Court imposed a fine of 5,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) on the applicant for disorderly conduct. The applicant appealed.
15.  On 14 January 2003 the Regional Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it quashed the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the periodical on the ground that the periodical lacked the legal capacity to be a party to court proceedings.
16.  On 12 February 2003 the District Court ruled that in so far as the applicant's claim concerned the remaining defendant, the editor of the periodical, it would be determined in a separate set of proceedings which are not the subject-matter of the present application.
17.  In the meantime, on 25 July 2002, the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution about the length of the proceedings with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He directed the complaint against both the District Court and the Regional Court and claimed just satisfaction in the amount of SKK 50,000[2].
18.  On 3 October 2002 the Constitutional Court appointed an ex officio lawyer for the applicant and on 13 November 2002 it declared the complaint admissible.
19.  On 9 July 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing “without unjustified delay” in the phase of the proceedings before the Regional Court but not before the District Court. The applicant was awarded SKK 20,000[3] in just satisfaction and reimbursement of his legal costs.
The Constitutional Court examined the overall length of the proceedings from their beginning in 1996 until the decision of 14 January 2003. However, it divided its examination into two parts, one concerning the District Court and one concerning the Regional Court. The Constitutional Court observed that the separate set of proceedings, which had been opened pursuant to the decision of 12 February 2003 in respect of the claim against the editor, were not the subject-matter of the proceedings before it.
It was further observed that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings by: supplementing the action several times, submitting requested documents late, challenging a judge without good reason and submitting comments in respect of the defendant's observations in reply to his appeal 22 months after receipt of those observations.
No unjustified delays could be imputed to the District Court, in contrast to the Regional Court which had been inactive without any acceptable explanation for more than 22 months.
As for the amount of just satisfaction, the Constitutional Court took into account the applicant's contribution to the length of the proceedings.
20.  On 3 August 1998 the applicant brought an action against a housing co-operative in the Považská Bystrica District Court. He claimed a sum of money which, in his view, he had overpaid as rent.
21.  The applicant challenged all the judges of the Považská Bystrica District Court for bias and, on 19 July 2000, the Trenčín Regional Court decided to exclude them and to transfer jurisdiction to the Trenčín District Court. The latter received the case file on 14 September 2000.
22.  On 25 July 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of the proceedings with the Constitutional Court. He directed the complaint against the Trenčín District Court and claimed SKK 40,000[4] in just satisfaction.
23.  On 13 November 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible.
24.  On 26 February 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Trenčín District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case expeditiously, to pay the applicant SKK 20,000[5] in damages and to reimburse his legal costs.
The Constitutional Court found that the subject-matter of the proceedings was not particularly complex and that no delays could be imputed to the applicant. As for the conduct of the authorities, the Constitutional Court observed that the applicant's complaint was aimed at the Trenčín District Court alone. Being bound by the scope of the complaint, as expressed by the applicant, the Constitutional Court was prevented from examining the phase of the proceedings before the Považská Bystrica District Court. It found that the Trenčín District Court had been inactive without any justification for two years and three months.
25.  The proceedings in the applicant's action are still pending.
26.  On 17 April 2000 the applicant lodged an action against a travel agency with the Bratislava I District Court. He submitted that the defendant had wrongfully cancelled his holiday reservation and claimed damages in the amount of approximately SKK 5,000[6].
27.  On 21 March 2001 the District Court requested the applicant to pay court fees, which he did on 23 April 2001. At the same time the applicant submitted further and better particulars.
28.  In a letter of 17 July 2002 in response to the applicant's complaint the President of the District Court acknowledged that there had been undue delays in the proceedings.
29.  On 5 August 2002 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees.
30.  On 5 August and 29 November 2002 the District Court requested, respectively, that the defendant submit documents and observations in reply.
31.  In the meantime, on 16 October 2002, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about delays in the proceedings. He claimed SKK 20,000 for his non‑pecuniary damage.
32.  On 13 November 2002 the Constitutional Court assigned the applicant an ex officio lawyer and declared the complaint admissible.
33.  On 19 February 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated, ordered that the District Court proceed with the case expeditiously, awarded the applicant SKK 10,000[7] in just satisfaction and ordered the reimbursement of his legal costs.
The subject-matter of the proceedings was not of a particular complexity, no delays could be imputed to the applicant and the District Court's conduct of the proceedings had been inefficient throughout.
34.  On 14 May 2003 the District Court requested the applicant to adduce evidence and to identify his witnesses, which he did on 22 May 2003.
35.  In November 2003 the District Court requested the applicant to specify the defendant to the action. The applicant responded on 19 November and 12 December 2003, respectively.
36.  On 22 December 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to specify the defendant correctly and completely.
37.  On 16 March 2004 the District Court quashed its decision of 22 December 2003 on the applicant's appeal in which he had submitted the missing information.
38.  On 26 March 2004 the applicant challenged the District Court judge for bias.
39.  On 6 April 2004 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it decided on the major part of the claim and ruled that the remainder would be determined in a separate set of proceedings. Those proceedings are still pending and they are not the subject-matter of the present application. The applicant appealed.
40.  On 21 July 2004 the District Court imposed a fine of SKK 2,000 on the applicant for “causing delays and damaging the interests of a party to the proceedings”.
41.  On 8 September 2004 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the challenge of bias and, on 20 April 2005, it upheld the judgment of 6 April 2004.
42. The applicant lodged a fresh complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution about continuing delays in the proceedings.
43.  On 8 September 2004 the Constitutional Court appointed an ex officio lawyer for the applicant and declared the complaint admissible in so far as it concerned the proceedings before the District Court in the period after its previous judgment (nález) of 19 February 2003.
44.  On 29 June 2005 the Constitutional Court found that, in the period under consideration, there had been no violation of the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court acknowledged that there had been delays of approximately 4 months which were imputable to the District Court. However, apart from these delays the District Court had dealt with the case properly and the said delays had played no significant role in respect of the proceedings as a whole. In contrast to that, the applicant had slowed down the proceedings substantially by his unclear submissions.
45.  On 10 July 2000 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Finance and the Central Slovakia Electricity Company in the Žilina District Court. In so far as could be established he claimed a payment of SKK 341[8] per month in compensation for “intentional violations of citizen's rights”.
46.  On 18 July 2000 the Žilina District Court transmitted the case to the Bratislava District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. On 9 August 2000 the latter objected to the transfer and requested that the question of territorial jurisdiction be determined by the Supreme Court.
47.  On 18 September 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the action fell to be determined by the Žilina District Court.
48.  On 31 October and 21 November 2000 the Žilina District Court repeatedly requested the applicant to provide better particulars and warned him that if he failed to do so, the proceedings would be discontinued. The applicant responded on 10 November and 1 December 2000, respectively.
49.  On 24 January 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings but the decision was quashed on the applicant's appeal by the Žilina Regional Court on 10 July 2001.
50.  In May and September 2002 the District Court sought information concerning the nationality and permanent residence of the applicant and his parents.
51.  The District Court summoned the applicant for a hearing on 15 October 2003 with a view to establishing the scope and legal nature of the action. The District Court subsequently requested that the applicant bring the particulars of his claim into line with the applicable formal rules.
52.  On 4 February 2004 the District Court requested that the applicant pay court fees. In response, the applicant requested a waiver of the fees.
53.  On 29 March 2004 the District Court granted the applicant a 50% reduction of court fees. The applicant appealed requesting a full exemption.
54.  On 30 April 2004 the Žilina Regional Court upheld the decision on court fees.
55.  On 4 October 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees. The decision was upheld on the applicant's appeal (odvolanie) by the Regional Court on 30 November 2004 and on his appeal on points of law (dovolanie) by the Supreme Court on 13 October 2005.
56.  In the meantime, the applicant had contested the length of the proceedings by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution.
57.  On 8 September 2004 the Constitutional Court appointed an ex officio lawyer for the applicant and declared the complaint admissible.
58.  On 29 June 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Žilina District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It granted him the reimbursement of his legal fees but dismissed his claim for compensation in respect of his non-pecuniary damage.
The Constitutional Court found no justification for the length of the proceedings in their subject-matter. However, the applicant had caused delays by his unclear and incomplete submissions and his failure to pay court fees. There had also been inexcusable delays imputable to the District Court which had been completely inactive for 19 months.
Having regard to the applicant's contribution to the length of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court considered that the finding of a violation of his right and the award in respect of costs and expenses were sufficient just satisfaction for the prejudice he had suffered.
59.  The applicant considers that the co-operative which administers the block of flats in which he lives has obliged him to pay excessive charges and contributions for the use of the flat. He unsuccessfully tried to have criminal proceedings brought in that connection.
60.  The applicant further alleges that by their policies the Government of the Slovak Republic have brought about a fall in living standards in Slovakia as a result of which he and many other persons have found themselves in a difficult financial situation.